bill-o is only worried about not being able to buy that 6th home, what with the impending
tax “increase”

bill-o also forgot to mention that 75% of americans want the government to tax the rich

Wait until O’Reilly finds out Buffet visited with Obama on Martha’s Vinyard this week……his freakin  head’ll explode.

NO COPY EDITING, NO PEACE!!!!

Warren Buffet, Darladoon and all of the others clamoring for higher taxes for the other guy are free to pay as much money as they want to the government at present.

Nobody is stopping them.

Their refusal to do so, however, suggests that they’re all talk and no walk.

Here ya go, Darla.

https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454

Let us know how much you pony up.

PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE.

and because a majority wants it makes it right huh?

Buffett, just STFU and send in your check and take a salary and pay your taxes like most people do instead of hiding behind capital gains.

It’s not capital gains that he’s hiding behind.

It’s the charitable giving deductions that he’s taking advantage of.

Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate.He boasts that he pays taxes at only 15%.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=buffett%20and%20taxes&st=cse
“

Darla, meet the argumentm ad populam fallacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Buffet’s point is THE SUPER RICH SHOULD BE TAXED AT A RATE AS THE AVERAGE AMERICAN.   He used his own income and tax rate as an example of how the rich are coddled and Fox News defends it. 

“To Obama’s credit, he has blamed both parties for the fiscal irresponsibility of the last ten years”

That was worthy of a great laugh. Yes, we know how well he blames everyone/everything else. We get to hear it in each speech.

He takes advantage of charities he gives his money to???

Is Bill O’ Reilly still claiming he’s an Independent?? Because he sure continues to look, act, talk, complain and defend certain policies like a Republican!!

He is not boasting that he is in the 15% bracket. He belives he and others of wealth should give more because they can afford it!

he could use a 1040 e-z form and pay taxes, but he doesn’t,

“Berkshire Hathaway, led by billionaire Warren Buffet, announced it will buy $5 billion worth of Bank of America shares in a private offering.”

A decision blessed by both of of America’s treasonous economic policy failures: bailout bernanke and NO-PLAN OBOZO.  FYI: buffett talked by phone with OBOZO (who’s still enjoying his taxpayer-funded luxury vacation at the Vineyard) just prior to buying BofA stock. Then there’s bailout bernanke…Aside from helping obozo, the top priority of bailout bernanke and his feckless fed is to ENSURE MASSIVE MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR PROFITS FOR BIG BANKS and WALL STREET CRONY CAPITALISTS. More profits = more crony capitalist campaign contributions to “YOU LIE!”.  There is NO WAY buffet will lose a penny on this deal – it’s guaranteed by obozo and bernanke to make him even more billions. And as payback, obozo’s crony capitalist buffett will be hosting a NYC FUND RAISER with some of his fellow billionaires for the most corrupt president in American history.

Why isn’t he giving that money to the government instead of writing it off as charitable giving?

Could it be that he thinks the money could be better spent under his control than the government’s?

 So earlier in the weak Ben Stein calls for more taxes, Warren buffet calls for more taxes. These guys know more about the economy than any of us will ever know,including Oriely. But they are stupid according to you righties. You worship their ability to make money but disdain their opinions on how to decrease the deficit. Ask yourself who knows more about how things work,Warren Buffet, Ben Stein or Bill Oriely.

Buffet doesn’t pay the federal income tax becuase he doesn’t draw a salary.

Then he should do it! what is stopping him?

name what is stopping him and all lib millionaires from sending in their checks?

Bill-O thinks Buffett destoyed California by giving advise to Arnold. May he is thing of Jimmy?

Say it in English next time.

No that can’t be right. Jimmy Buffett is a pretty sharp Dem as well.

Appeal to authority fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_Authority

You Obamacrats are just full of these logical fallacies, aren’t you?

TeaBagger Cult members……mere animals trained to bark when they hear the dog whistle.

These guys know more about the economy than any of us will ever know,including Oriely”

So did Summers, Romer, Geithner, Orszag etc. and they are now gone. How did they work out for ya?

Wanna know where i go to get thoughtful economic analysis?  The Associated Press, of course!

C’mon, Colby.  Are you really trying to make a point by citing the Associated Press?

Bush himself added 4 trillion to a 5.7 trillion dollar debt.  We’re now around 14.5.  Almost all of this is entitlements.  What a joke of an article published by those economic whiz kids at the New York times.

One day in an economics 101 class is enough to debunk that piece.  It’s as if it was written by the Onion and accidentally posted by the Times, and sadly taken seriously by people who would rather let others do their thinking for them.

Jimmy Buffet is a Hawaiian-shirt clad barefoot musician who plays bad music for drunks and frat boys.

Where do you get that figure? Out of your a$$ doesn’t count.

Can you at least remove your Obama drool cup and knee pads when you say that?

Why didn’t Warren send $5 billion to the treasury instead of to BofA? Could it be that he wants to make even more money and just talk out his anal orifice about paying more in taxes? Yep. Buffet and Soros pay 15% in taxes but yell and scream how every OTHER rich ($250K per year) person should be paying more. The Liberals eat this up – priceless.

Can’t we just elect another dumb Texan to grind the economy into the ground, alienate the world, and kill some Muslims?  Geez. 

The IRS would accept a 1040ez. Buffett would have 1099 forms to report.

As long as it doesn’t come out of their hide they’ll vote yes on it, just like seniors will tell you it’s OK to revamp SS as long as it doesn’t  take a dime from them.  Using these polls to argue right or wrong is disengenuous.

Why? We already have a guy from Chicago who has been doing that for the last 2.5 years.

Can’t argue with you on that one LT. Drink 2

k Stonedork listen to your side, hows that lower taxes for the last 12 years working out for the country? Its been a blast. Only you would worship a president who took a surplus and managed to double the debt in 8 years wow thats, impressive.

I thought it was the Chicagoan doing a bang up job on all of that. Oh, and keeping GITMO open too. Oh, and continuing the wars and starting a new one. Oh, and adding almost as much as the Texan did in 2.5 years that the Texan added in 8 to the national debt.

Like Geoge Bush?

He should lead by example and give 50% of everything he has to the government.

Surely, others would follow his lead and we’d all hold hands singing kum-bay-ya.

What kinda music do you listen to LT? Military marching tunes?

Indeed I will.

They probably don’t wear knee pads. They like the pain he dishes out in whatever form.

Talk dirty to me

And then your President came in and managed to spend more in 2 years than the previous one in 8,

But to you, that’s suddenly a feature and not a bug.

If Obama was so concerned about balancing budgets, why did the Democrats raise taxes when they held Congress and the WH while they were spending all this money? Or even pass a budget?

Game. Set. Match.

But oddly both he and Soros DON’T give more. Talk is cheap and we get enough of it from Obama.

No, like Jimmy Buffet.

Hey Bill,

When you complete your ”Rhinoceros”-like transformation into John McCain, will you do it live on set?

Buffett, and those who agree with him think we are idiots!
Is Buffett going to pay more? No, he isn’t unless the tax break for tax-free municipal bonds is eliminated.  Ask him if he is for that?
Will Buffett fire his cadre of tax-accountants whose job is to legally minimize his tax hit? No, he won’t!
Higher tax rates don’t work because there are always corresponding loopholes created for those with great wealth and/or high incomes. Go back to the 91% tax rates and find out how many actually paid that!!
If you want the rich to pay more (and they do, by the way), lower rates & eliminate loopholes!

conseguir una vida!

Liberals are marketed to like children watching Saturday morning cartoons.

Funny isn’t it?  Buffet wouldn’t dare give his billions to the federal government because he’s smart.

 Lol you haven’t even started the match. He hasn’t spent more in two years than bush did in 8 number 1. He will in three years. But see he still has to deal with unfunded wars from your previous einstein. As well as a economy that crashed thanks in part to your einstein. And why didn’t the democrats raise taxes? They wanted to goofball but your republican congress decided to hold the president hostage by threatening to cut unemployment benefits in order to prevent the expiration of the bush tax cuts. Another brilliant move that helped our economy. So now you want to put another bonehead from Texas in to do as good a job as Bush did. Wow lets keep repeating our mistakes.

That number (75%) means nothing to me when 47-50% of those polled pay no income tax.No skin off there nose.

Yes they didn’t work in the 90s when we had higher taxes and a surplus at the end of Clintons presidency these guys are such fools! Oh and plus Clinton created 23 million jobs, god these guys don’t know what they are talking about. Hey I know during our next war we should cut taxes even more man that will be a brilliant move! Hell if we get in world war 3 we shouldn’t pay taxes at all! Watch how the deficit shrinks before our eyes!

You are not ver good at math are ya.

Obama is running debt at $1.6 trillion a year versus Bush’s $625 billion a year!

And Barry has driven up the debt 38% in just 2.5 years and he has a deficit exceeding 10% GDP and at 100% GDP!

But see he still has to deal with unfunded wars from your previous einstein.”

Which Barry is continuing and added a 3rd in Libya.

BTW, SOS Clinton, John Kerry and John Edwards voted for those wars!

Clinton CUT taxes, enacted free trade agreements through NAFTA, started a welfare to work program, and famously decried “The era of big government is over.”

If someone took the name Clinton out of those policies and showed them to the left today, they would be crying about tea bagging radicals…

echarle una bronca/charla a alguien!

wow Bush drove up the debt100% in 8 years! So obama is doing a better job.  The reason the Debt is higher is your foolish republicans blocked the bush tax cuts from expiring, plus two unfunded wars and a crashed economy thanks to your hero. How is this so hard to understand for you? Roosevelt drove up the debt even more during the great depression. Governments spend more money during tough economic times and wars get it? Of course Bush didn’t get it cause he’s the first one ever to cut taxes during a war.

And why didn’t the democrats raise taxes? They wanted to goofball but
your republican congress decided to hold the president hostage by
threatening to cut unemployment benefits in order to prevent the
expiration of the bush tax cuts.

Hey, dipstick.

THE DEMOCRATS HELD CONGRESS FROM JAN 2007 ALL THRU 2010. OBAMA WAS ELECTED AT THE END OF 2008 AND HAD A DEMOCRAT CONGRESS FROM 2009 THROUGH JAN 2011.

The GOP had nothing to do with him not doing anything on taxes or anything else becuase they had no power whatever. Proof of this? Obama, instead of raising taxes like you want to now, focused on cramming ObamaCare down the country’s throat on a strict party line vote. Proof that he could have raised taxes if he wanted to, but didn’t.

But now, suddenly, WE HAVE TO RAISE TAXES. Too late, chumps. You had your chance, and you blew it. Stop crying about the GOP.

Para mí hablar sucio       

Where The Buck Stops

Classical, jazz, rock, funk, R&B, country, folk, some pop. Military marching tunes are also awesome, but they’re a subdivision of classical.

wow Bush drove up the debt100% in 8 years! So obama is doing a better job”

Wrong! your math really sucks, kid. At Barry’s current rate he will drive up the debt 121%!!! Barry supported the bush tax rates!

Tax rates were higher under Clinton than Bush turk. THe Deficit shrank, he also cut govt spending. Wow isn’t this a interesting idea to cut a deficit. Higher tax rates and cutting spending? Wow amazing I wonder why no one can figure this out.

 Hey dipstick the dems didn’t have power in congress when the bush tax cuts were set to expire. They were lameducks and the republicans were going to filibuster to  stop unemployment benefits if Obama signed off on the increase in taxes. He got blackmailed pure and simple. So he took the lesser of two evils cause he didn’t want to let the unemployment benefits expire. 

You make a good point..  Even Buffett sees that his money is better spent under his control and not the governments.

At least your open minded about music. Bravo LT! What do you know, a common tread. DRINK ANOTHER! 

Taxes were higher under Bush 1, inside guy.  Clinton cut, cut, and then cut welfare.  When he was done with that he de-regulated.  You know the lefts famous cry over fair trade?  Well he decided that was bs and stuck with free trade.

Once again, if Clinton’s policies were on paper, one would think they came straight off the desk of Paul Ryan.

I applaud Clinton for abandoning liberal policy and “triangulate.”  He presided over the greatest economic times of my generation.

 Reagan tripled the Debt in 8 years because he cut taxes and raised spending. See how this works? Kinda like if you decided to take a lower paying job then bought a corvette and a million dollar house, you would have less coming in and more going out. Wow this is so hard to understand.

Could you refresh my memory on who controlled the purse strings under Clinton? 23 million jobs might have been created under Clinton but it was due to the dot.com explosion.

Guess when that collapsed – under Bush. Guess what else Bush got? 9/11. Clinton and his buddies also left the wonderful housing bubble to someone else to deal with. They were the ones who required all the banks to loan to people who couldn’t pay the mortgage all the while claiming Fannie/Freddie were just fine.

imbécil   de ninguna manera

And Reagan’s deficits where never greater than 5% of GDP and Barry’s is > 10%!

Yeah, so is the Liberal sweetheart Soros. He just shut down his hedge fund because he didn’t like what was coming down the pike in the way of higher taxes. He liked his 15% and got out while it was still a sweet deal.

You’re obsessed with sucking Koch, eh?

HILARIOUS!!!

Yet Reagan raise taxes something like 8 times.

You have to look at debt to GDP ratio.

You’re making my argument for me.  The debt under Reagan was different because we had revenue coming in to the government after the Carter recession was over.

It’s like buying a corvette and a million dollar house if you’re a millionaire.

The U.S. debt surpassed 100% of gross domestic product after the debt ceiling was lifted.  We are literally spending more than we have coming in.

Ha Ha you guys were calling him a murderer and a rapist when he was president you guys despised him! Your side freaking impeached him! And he did cut some taxes but also raised some taxes. He increased income tax in 1993 but cut taxes on capital gains in 1997 for example. But Bush decided to cut the income tax in 2001 during a freaking WAR. Who does that? When has that ever been done? How does that make any sense? Heres a clue no one ever did.

Determined to cut taxes while waging war, President Bush is bucking history.Taxes have been increased for every war the United States has fought, with the exception of the war against Mexico in the 1840s. Ever since most of the original 13 colonies increased property taxes to raise money to fight the British in the American Revolution, war has generally meant taxpayers pay more.New things are tried during wartime. New weapons are tried in real war conditions and new tax policies are tried too. Some of the most fundamental changes in American tax policy have occurred during wartime.The first discussion of an inheritance tax occurred during the War of 1812, and it was enacted during the Civil War. Also during the Civil War, the first national income tax was imposed. It was levied on the wealthiest 10 percent of Union households. The income tax was expanded during World War II, when for the first time most citizens became taxpayers, much as they are today.The Bush administration argues that a war against Iraq is destined to be short and relatively inexpensive, so there is no risk in cutting taxes. The new Treasury Secretary, John Snow, says the war will be small, that we can afford it and then put it behind us.History says different. Snow’s sentiment is no different than the onset of every other war America has fought, with the exception of WWII. For example, at the beginning of the Civil War, most experts predicted the war would last a few months at the most, and President Abraham Lincoln’s treasury secretary, Salmon P. Chase, estimated that the war would cost $320 million. In actuality, the war lasted four bloody years and cost $5 billion, more than 15 times Chase’s calculation.In the early days of the Vietnam buildup, Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson also thought they could safely cut taxes and meet military expenditures. Business taxes were cut in 1962 under Kennedy, and income taxes were cut across the board in 1964 under Johnson. But as the U.S. commitment in Vietnam grew, budgetary strains escalated.In his State of the Union address in 1967, Johnson asked Congress for a tax increase to keep the budget deficit in check while increasing military spending significantly.Congress hesitated for a while, but in 1968, a 10 percent surcharge was imposed on individual and corporate income taxes. Under President Richard M. Nixon, taxes were raised again in 1969.

The affairs of government were much simpler during the Bush years. You could ignore the economy and everything was right as long as you were engaging in a protracted war with a Muslim nation. If your reason for going to war, say WMDs, is found to be nonexistent, you can always fall back on the claim that you are helping the downtrodden of that nation, by introducing democracy, as you bomb it. If anyone questions why your party supports spending so much to help a foreign people who don’t want your help, yet write off the plight of their own countrymen as simple laziness, you can always change the subject to gay marriage.

Reagan lowered tax rates but don’t let facts fool you.

I have
to give you credit for your blind allegiance to Obama. It matters not what he
does because it is all Bush’s fault. Come on, get real with us; it’s not the
kool-aid it’s the free lobotomies you guys get that make you so ignorant to
facts. You can’t handle the truth (please read that in your best Jack Nicholson
voice).

 But turk all taxes were higher under Reagan than they are now! All of them! Doesn’t this make it clear to you? The reason the Debt is increasing at such a high rate is we are still involved in 2 wars costing us trillions and taxes are super low!

son todos republicanos como stupio como ustedes?.

Yes stonebrain the deficit was higher per GDP in world war 2 the highest in recorded history. The reason that Obama may double the debt the way Bush did is that tax rates are at a historic low and we are fighting two wars. Your boy cut taxes during these wars the Defense budget is nearly a trillion dollars total. If your republicans would have let the tax cuts expire then our deficit would not be as large its as simple as that.

I’ll agree with you about cutting loopholes.

I don’t agree with this talking point, that has come up, questioning why Buffett doesn’t pay more. Buffett paying more alone doesn’t do anything to solve the problem. There are people who don’t like the police, don’t aid the police, and wouldn’t call the police. That doesn’t mean they should be able to say they don’t want to be taxed to support the police department, and the people that disagree can send all of their money to the police department. Many people didn’t support the Iraq war. That didn’t stop them from supporting it with their taxes. That didn’t stop them from bearing the financial fallout on our economy that it caused.

Hey insideguy, the next time you cut and paste to make your point, provide a link.

It comes from:
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/politics_democratic/99253

That’s right, from the Democratic Party website. 

Have you lost all of your critical thinking skills and just let the DNC tell you how to think?

I’m more concerned that if we don’t increase tax revenues, Michelle Obama is not going to be able to blow another 10 million next year on international vacations for her and her extended family.

Stonepark all tax rates on every level were higher under Reagan than Obama,every single level. Every single level. Income,capital gains i could go on.

Its always about sex with you. What’s up with that?

I know that my welfare check is not enough for me to pay for premium cable AND my I-phone….If this keeps up, I wll need to find a Job.  Therefore I am part of that 75% who believe that the rich need to take on more than 90% of the tax burden. 

turk it doesn’t matter where it came from the point is no one has ever cut taxes during wartime! Find me a link that says someone has! Don’t use that as a bullshit argument show me facts!

Yep, remember we SHARE this country.  It’s not yours its not mines its OURS!

I haven’t heard anyone on the right call either Stein or Buffet stupid – just you.

There are plenty of very intelligent economists who don’t agree with Stein or Buffet and probably haven’t been invited to have din din with the lovely Michelle and Barry nor have they volunteered to have a fundraiser for them.  You see – again, it perception.

Buffet is a nice man – who’s made billions and is now garnering front page coverage and yet there’s this problem isn’t there?  

Ahhhh brilliant freedom so Bushs economy was clintons fault but Obamas economy isn’t Bushs fault. I love to see hypocrisy pour out of your veins.

I know that my welfare check is not enough for me to pay for premium cable AND my I-phone….If this keeps up, I wll need to find a Job.  Therefore I am part of that 75% who believe that the rich need to take on more than 90% of the tax burden. 

That’s what Buffet said?  Well then he was not very forthright because they are – Go look at the tax rate and let us know how much lower the super rich’s is than the average american and get back to us – o.k.?

He classifies himself as a conservative all the time on his show….Good catch though.

He classifies himself as a conservative all the time on his show….Good catch though.

Great contribution dude.  Can you even find your way to the voting booth next year?

Wow, I don’t think the Right way of thinking as been so clearly laid out.

I’m tired of ineffective Dems not making strong enough arguments.

Ben Stein a REPUBLICAN boldly says there is not correlation between jobs and taxes.

Um, Obama ramped up both wars, got into a third(without congressional approval), kept Guantanamo open, extended and added to the PATRIOT act, Bombs Pakistan with drones, and want to take the gay marriage cheap shot?  Well let’s just say that in 2000 Dick Cheney was in favor of gay marriage…It’s 2011 and Obama’s views are “evolving” whatever that means.

You liberals re-elected Bush, but an even bigger fiscally irresponsible Bush.  Times three to be exact.

What’s amazing to me is that instead of holding him responsible, you’d rather go back and blame Bush, or tea parties or smokers that don’t buy organic sea salt.

Where’s Code Pink and the rest of the insufferable all white liberal hypocrites? 

how did Obama ramp up the Iraq war?

Nice try, but let me clear you up on a few points. ALL Presidents inherit either good or bad from prior  presidents. What they choose to do after that is totally on them after the first year and which party controls the House/Senate definitely factors in. In addition, there are circumstances that are beyond anyone’s control (i.e. 9/11) that can’t be compared to other Presidencies. For Obama to still be whining after almost 3 years is ludicrous. He had total control for his first 2 years. The sky was the limit as we have seen in the Democrats spending spree.

So you don’t think people making $250,000 are rich?

That is $1,000,000 every 4 years (before taxes of course).

Do you know how much money you’re making every week in order to pull down that sort of cheese?

First, let me say that I agree with anyone who is willing to admit that both political parties are responsible for the debt that we have now. Even Ronald Reagan said “I’m not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself.” As I recall, he said that while building up the military in an arms race against the Soviet Union, which we won.

For many years now, I have heard folks complaining that they were worried about how our grandchildren and great-grandchildren would pay for the debt that we have been building up. But, when we tell a few folks that they can afford to start paying off some of the debt right now, they say No Way!

Isn’t that obvious hypocrisy? “I worry for my grand-kids, but I’m not going to do anything about it, except complain.”

O’Reilly constantly reminds us that he has charities he supports, but that is no excuse for passing his share of the national debt on to my grandchildren. A slightly higher tax on his income will not reduce the number of people he hires. Heck. He just might have to hire another tax accountant.

By 7,170 troops.

30,000 in Afghanistan.

 The sky wasn’t the limit 2012. We were heavily involved in 2 wars our economy had crashed and there were tons of unfunded liabilities. How was the sky the limit? You can only move so fast. Bushs Tax cuts were not set to expire till 2010. If you are given a turd its not very easy to turn that into a diamond. But Ill tell you what you seem like a logical guy. Say you and I would be sitting around a table and we had control of this economy. I say hey 2012 give me some tax increases or close some loopholes and ill give you some spending cuts would you agree with me?

Buffett is correct. You are an idiot.
He is saying he is willing to pay more taxes, but you tell us he is lying.
Who should I believe, a very wealthy man who will be checked by everybody, or a hot-headed non-millionaire who posts here?

remember what you said majority rules…..got it

Buffet thinks that taxes are just for the little guy after all!

Per: http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/08/warren-buffett-tax-hypocrite/

Americans for Limited Government
researcher Richard McCarty, who was alerted to the controversy by a
federal government lawyer, said, “The company has been short-changing
the tax collection agency for much of the past decade. Mr. Buffett’s
company has not fully settled its tax bills from 2002-2009. Yet he says
he’d happily pay more. Except the IRS has apparently been asking him to
pay more going on nine years.”

Hypocrite liberal clown.

There are less than 50000 troops in Iraq as we speak, he actually added more than 30,000 in Afghanistan and killed Bin Laden. He didn’t ramp up the Iraq war at all. There was a slight bump up for a month in may of 2008 in Iraq but has dropped from over 150,000 in Iraq at the beginning of his term to 50,000 .

Devils_Spawn, I agree both parties are to blame.  But the only thing more ridiculous than saying the debt doesn’t matter, is saying it can be fixed by taxes.  NO tax rate can pay for 14.5 trillion dollars.  It makes for a good talking point, but the fact is even if you confiscated all of the “evil” rich peoples money you’re still not even close.

What we have is unsustainable.  50% of Americans pay no taxes.  Social Security pays out more than it takes in.  Baby Boomers are starting to retire.  We compete in a global economy.  We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, so if you run a corporation why wouldn’t you relocate to Canada or Japan?  You don’t get into business to not be competitive.

Top all of this off with the fact that the huge corporations find loopholes in the ginormous tax code to avoid paying taxes, and all of the regulations and high taxes only hurt the little people who don’t have 199 tax attorneys on hand.

So the sugar high that one gets from taxing the rich quickly fades as reality kicks in.

Devils_Spawn, I agree both parties are to blame.  But the only thing more ridiculous than saying the debt doesn’t matter, is saying it can be fixed by taxes.  NO tax rate can pay for 14.5 trillion dollars.  It makes for a good talking point, but the fact is even if you confiscated all of the “evil” rich peoples money you’re still not even close.

What we have is unsustainable.  50% of Americans pay no taxes.  Social Security pays out more than it takes in.  Baby Boomers are starting to retire.  We compete in a global economy.  We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, so if you run a corporation why wouldn’t you relocate to Canada or Japan?  You don’t get into business to not be competitive.

Top all of this off with the fact that the huge corporations find loopholes in the ginormous tax code to avoid paying taxes, and all of the regulations and high taxes only hurt the little people who don’t have 199 tax attorneys on hand.

So the sugar high that one gets from taxing the rich quickly fades as reality kicks in.

No, I don’t think they are rich. Well off? Possibly depending on where they live. $250K in New York is different than $250K in some small town in Iowa. What if they are a small business owner? That is a huge difference between a salary of $250K and business profits of $250K.

All that aside, why does Obama keep referring to them as millionaires and billionaires? You do know the difference right?

No, I don’t think they are rich. Well off? Possibly depending on where they live. $250K in New York is different than $250K in some small town in Iowa. What if they are a small business owner? That is a huge difference between a salary of $250K and business profits of $250K.

All that aside, why does Obama keep referring to them as millionaires and billionaires? You do know the difference right?

250 gs is rich if your smart. If you invest your money and are bringing in that type of money every year you should be rich in no time. Even if you live in new york or san fran. If you live in a 500,000 dollar nice house in the new york city area and are bringing in 250,000 a year plus investments which you should have, then you are rich. Maybe not super duper rich but, if you consistently bring in that kinda money and are a little bit intelligent it shouldn’t take you to long to be super duper rich.

Accidental “like” while looking for reply button.
Forget the statistics like 35%, 100%, 125%. They don’t tell us anything. It is what is behind the statistics that counts, and remember this little trick:

X costs a dollar. 50% price increase. X now costs $1.50. 50% price decrease. X now costs 75¢, not 50¢.
add 50% then subtract 50% of that does not bring us back to the original price or deficit. Again, percentages do not tell the story, and not accounting for inflation and other changes to money over time also gives false information.

The price of gold was at its highest in 1980, at $840 (approximately). It was 1,700 (approximately) just a week ago, but the 1980 price equates to more than $2,400 today.

Any argument about deficits must be made in “constant dollars,” not “current dollars.” Ask Ron Paul about that.

Inside, I had to reply to your last post here since we were out of room thanks to this new discussion forum we are forced to use. First off, yes I can be a reasonable FEMALE. Next, the economy was tanking but it was not entirely Bush’s fault as you all like to claim. The housing bubble was the Democrats folly and it hit the economy hard. Banks and hedge funds started to panic because they had a ton of money tied up in those mortgages. Banks stopped lending to each other and to the public. I can go on and on but I won’t.

We were involved in 2 wars which was supported by BOTH parties. The Democrats were for it before they were against it. Have we been there too long? Yes.

Obama and the Democrats could have ended the Bush tax cuts. They didn’t. Even Obama knew it wasn’t smart to end the tax cuts in such a strong downturn. The Bush tax cuts affected everyone, not just the rich. We all got a tax cut.

Obama spent almost a trillon dollars to pay back his buddies. Get real. It was not for “job” creation with those “shovel ready” jobs he had lined up. Then they shoved through the health nightmare bill and that sealed the coffin with the last nail. Businesses have no idea what is coming at them down the road. Of course they are hoarding money. Things keep changing daily. Nan was kidding when she said they had to pass the bill to find out what is in it.

Obama has spent almost as much as Bush in 2.5 years that it took Bush to spend in 8. Is that okay with you?

If we were sitting around a table and you asked for some loopholes to be closed and some taxes to be raised and in turn you would give me REAL cuts, I am all for it. Taxing people making $250K and calling them billionaires is not the way to do it.

In closing – flat tax. One of the best ways to save some real money and to get some real money.

Yeah, what turk said.

 So much to respond to but I think we can agree on most of that. I will address your closing. Flat Tax sounds great and wonderful, but will never happen in our lifetime so its useless even to talk about. It wont happen,will never happen,it just aint gonna happen. So we all must figure out how to make this work under the existing system.

A well respected business man and prob one of the brightest economic
minds of our days who gives away 12 Billion to charity couldn´t care
less about the amount he pays.  It´s obvious that a society is headed
for dark days when the gap between the rich and poor steadily grows.
Anyone should be concerned about it. Regarding the budget only cuts AND increase of revenue is a solution.

Frankly, America is first and foremost a plutocracy where the debate is what degree of plutocracy is acceptable. The GOP/TeaParty doesn´t make a secret out of it they advocate a dog eat dog capitalism like back in the first days of the industrialization. The other side has acted irresponsible when passing on the chance to lay the foundation for a modern society. So they aren´t really so much better.

America is on the path of regression and standing no chance economically. Btw, the level of conversation is so low the importance of exporting goods is rarely mentioned. 

Seems like someone got pwned.

I’m not going to say any name: TURK281! But I think you know who I”m talking about!

Deflect, you do. Refute, you do not.

Rapper 50 Cent once infamously bragged about selling quarter waters for $2 a bottle and subsequently the company, which he had significant stock in, sold to Coca-Cola for billions, which put about $100 million into his pocket.

What’s the moral of the story? Yes it takes a special sort to not only scam the public into buying the same tap water, which a street vendor would sell them for a quarter, for over a dollar a bottle, but to then boast of scamming them and making even more in a deal with Coca-Cola in a rap. Does it make him a jerk? Probably. Does it invalidate his point that he was making a killing by tricking the public at large? Not one bit.

Once O’Reilly gets an idea in his hand, his brain gets “stuck on stupid” and no amount of reason or facts will sway him.  He often cites these polls.  What good is a poll result when you’re asking questions about economic policy when most of the people questioned know zero about economics?  And yet politicians and talking heads continue to use poll stats whenever it suits them.  A real intellectually insulting way to try to win an argument.

I’ve watched Ben Stein, who seems a reasonable guy and has argued with the Fox Business block robots on the 2-hour Sat. a.m. business block, try to talk reasonably to O’Reilly about tax policy, for instance, and O’Reilly just insultingly tells Stein that he’s wrong.  O’Reilly, who often puts down liberal “kool-aid drinkiers,” has partaken of the Fox kool-aid himself in being so rigidly inflexible to any tax increases, believing the liberals just want to take the money and hand it out to poor black people, or whatever the talking-points-of the day is for Fox and Republicans.

And O’Reilly does the same thing with legal analysts even when they point out the legal points of law in cases as people like Megyn Kelly do on his show.  He completely ignores relevant points of law if the result is not to his liking.  He really comes across as quite the dunce when it comes to legal points.  I think it’s pretty funny.

Anyway, y’all keep watching O’Reilly and enjoy!  I used to watch him all the time but can’t stand him anymore (two of the many reasons noted above).  I’ll tune in about a half-hour a week if there’s an interesting interview; otherwise, he’s a waste of time.

again I say (not that I disagree or agree) if you link wiki, you fail…

thats better

you’re a girl?

so tell me again why you support republicans?

What is funny about this whole thing is that we are fighting over something that will not effect us.  We are not in the top 10% (and to those who say you are, please…) and none of us are in the “job creating” business.  How do I know, we spend all day chatting on the internet. 

Inside guy- those aren’t Obama rates- they are Bush rates!

LOL

Buffet should give the money “He does not need”(As Obama says) to the Government.   Why not simply write them a check for a few billion to show us he is serious.  When he does this I will take him seriously. 

So as long as it only affects someone else who cares? We are all richer than someone else. What if the people below your income level suddenly decide you make too much money and you need to pay more in taxes? Why should they care, it doesn’t affect them.

Oh, and to answer your other question – yes, I am a girl.

According to the CBO “taxing the rich” at Clinton era rates, under the rosiest of projections,  brings in about $70 Billion per year.  On a $1.5 Trillion deficit that solves less than 5% of the problem.  Yet that is all liberals talk about as if it is a real solution.  

the “argumentm ad populam fallacy:” is a fallacy in itself when it is the majority which decide on the matter, suggesting it isn’t what they think that counts is puerile.

Trying to force the ‘some of us deserve billions more than you poor folks’ argument kinda washed when the majority were doing ok, now the majority of us are sucking up to the top 5% money men in our country who are also earning 80% of the income.

I dont need wiki to tell me that, I know it and you know it. and everyone is talking about it http://washingtonindependent.com/91038/with-income-gap-at-80-year-high-solutions-remain-elusive

“the proportion of the country’s income going to the top one percent is at its highest since 1928.” – Emmanuel Saez, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley,(quoted from the page link above)

Both parties ARE responsible for the deficits.  But as far as your tax increase proposal let me paste what I have said about it……”According to the CBO “taxing the rich” at Clinton era rates, under the
rosiest of projections,  brings in about $70 Billion per year.  On a
$1.5 Trillion deficit that solves less than 5% of the problem.  Yet that
is all liberals talk about as if it is a real solution”

Tax increases at BEST solve 5% of the problem lets say we do that then what is YOUR solution to the other 95% of the problem. 

I believe he should show us the way by writing a check for a few billion to the Government…..otherwise I consider him ALL talk…..just like Obama. 

I am a firm believer in “the buck stops here”….so I am going to give Clinton Kudos for balancing the budget…..now……having said that…..will you join me in “the buck stops here” belief and admit the miserable economy is Obama’s responsibility?  Or does “the buck stop here” only when it looks good for liberal political leaders. 

I did not say that increasing taxes on the rich was the solution to everything. I so say that even if the rosiest projections only solve 5% of the problem, then the LEAST we can do is solve that 5% while we work on solving the other 95%.
The fact remains that the debt can only grow so long as we do not stop EVERYTHING for a year or two, and still refuse to increase any taxes for anyone.
As the wise men say, every journey starts with a singe step. How can you expect cooperation on the other steps if you refuse to take the simplest and most obvious first step?
Politically, conservatives are being penny wise, but dollar foolish to protect people who don’t need protection.

No conservative has proposed a plan that eliminates the debt at any time in the foreseeable future. They can’t do it without raising taxes somewhere, but they can’t get reelected if they do.

Fine. Ignore the wisdom of one of the richest men in the world. That’s your loss.

That requires the activity of the entire Congress, not just the president. Failure to take action belongs to everybody in the elected offices of the government.

“While we work on solving the other 95%”……No offense as I appreciate your response but……..I take that as another “lets raise taxes and kick the can of spending down the road like we have been doing forever.   The moment the Republicans agree to “only tax increases”  they lose any bargaining power for the NEEDED spending cuts.  Reagan and Bush Sr fell for this same garbage. 

Let me ask you once again….what are your ideas about the other 95% of the problem.   No liberal has EVER gave me an answer to that save the military budget.  I am OK with that as well but we need MUCH MUCH more. 

The reasonable solution can only be to reduce a $1.5 Trillion deficit in one year…

Giving the money to the government is not the solution, and it’s not what Warren Buffett is proposing.  Warren Buffet giving ALL his money wouldn’t solve anything, however, what he is proposing – increasing taxes on the mega wealthy WILL solve problems.

It seams you are having difficulty with mathematics.    The CBO showed taxing the rich at Clinton era rates, under the rosiest of projections, brings in about $70 billion per year.  Obama’s deficit is $1.5 trillion.   Now take $70 billion and divide by $1.5 trillion and convert to %(Multiply by 100).   THat equals Solving LESS than 5% of the problem.  But please do let FACTS get in the way of your fantasies. 

I will…glad you understand. 

I have not said cuts are not necessary. I know they are necessary, and while I have not identified specific cuts because I don’t know the budget well enough, I do recall that Democrats (or liberals if you prefer) did offer significant cuts, but wanted tax increases, too. They did not refuse to cut anything, and in fact offered to make at least three times as many cuts as any tax increase would add to the budget. Republicans rejected this completely. That is were we got stuck.

The first move was going to be three steps by liberals for one step by conservatives, then look at the map again.

Look at the current popularity polls. Most people agree with Buffett, and Obama’s support is crashing because he caved in to conservatives. If he doesn’t toughen up and kick some conservative ass, his ratings will still be low, but conservative ratings will be even lower. This is not a winning scenario for the conservative cause.

See my response to BigJim.

Yeah….I have heard of these so-called Obama cuts.   Kind of like the Loch Ness Monster……heard of them but never seen them.   And I looked cause I try to give the issues reasonable consideration.  If you can point me the way to these so-called Obama cuts….that would be appreciated. 

How exactly will it solve problems? You think that the “rich” people’s money will be put directly to the debt to lower it? That it will go to feed the homeless? Get serious. It will just add more money to the till for the Congress to spend on turtle tunnels and other useless pet projects. The more money you give them the more they will spend.

The truth is Buffet has a long history of going out of his way to avoid his share of taxes. It is very hypocritical of him to now be calling for higher taxes. Just read one of his books. He advocates holding on to stocks for long periods and since he rarely sells a stock and converts it to income he avoids capital gains taxes which are lower than income taxes to incentivize investments. Also, Buffet now has a ton of accumulated wealth which the government does not tax heavily (estate taxes, aka. death tax) . The goverment mostly taxes earned income. Warren Buffet owns a quarter of Bershire Hathaway when its stock goes up, he is wealthier on paper but he does not receive a large salary from the company so he avoids pay high income taxes. Lastly, Obama wants to use Buffet as a strawman to go after anyone making over $200,000.

“Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.”

“Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”

I am no believer, but I do find beauty in those statements..,

So.. You wanna do something later?

“Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.”

“Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”

I am no believer, but I do find beauty in those statements..,

So.. You wanna do something later?

If you can point me the way to these so-called Obama cuts….that would be appreciated.

Those were in the talks that Cantor stormed out of, and that Boehner and McConnell rejected without showing us what they were rejecting.

The headlines covered the generalities. I won’t look up what you ignored weeks and months ago.

If you can point me the way to these so-called Obama cuts….that would be appreciated.

Those were in the talks that Cantor stormed out of, and that Boehner and McConnell rejected without showing us what they were rejecting.

The headlines covered the generalities. I won’t look up what you ignored weeks and months ago.

No you moron. Warren Buffet has done more than any billionaire in history to avoid paying taxes. All his money is on paper in the form of Berkshire stock. The governemnt taxes income much higher that capital gains.So now that Warren has made his pile he wants to tax the next guy higher. He is the type of person who climbs to the top and kicks the ladder down for the next guy. When he dies the majority of his assets are going to the Gates Foundation. Why? Because he knows they will actually use the money for a good cause and not waste it on some pork project or crony stimilus 

My fantasy (aside from Selma Hayek) would be owing shares in Berkshire Hathaway.

Exactly. Most of Buffet’s Wealth is in the form of Bersksire stock which he will have to pay capital gains on if converted to income. Capital gains tax 17%. If he lived in NY, NJ, or CA and was paid a salary every year, Uncle Sam would be taking half of it. I serioulsy doubt he would lobbying for more taxes if that were the case. Although, I do think he makes a distiction between real millionaires and billionaires and families who make $250k (he calls for increases for people who really make over a million a year). Obama does not and would like nothing more than to use ole Warren as a strawman to raise taxes on those making 200k.

I read ALL that stuff……and yet the so-called Obama cuts were not specified AT ALL.    And you take the time to respond to my posts, and I appreciate it, yet have not given me one cut you would be OK with.   But in your defense…..neither has Obama. 

You have your facts wrong. He raised taxes on a promise from Congress that they would lower spending. That never happened.  He then cut taxes and the failing Carter economy took off and rebounded. He was re-elected because of the rebounding economy.  You can’t change history with rhetoric.

“TMP”

Clinton knew when to move to the center.  Obama hasn’t a clue about how the economy works or about running a country.

“TMP”

What’s with the “rich” in quotation marks?  They’re not really “rich”?  They’re special people?  It’s very simple math.

A.  The “rich” guy says he’s not paying enough taxes and he says that neither do his “rich friends”.  Are you smarter at business than him?  No, he’s friggin’ “rich”.  Next to him you and I are business idiots (that is unless you are Bill Gates, which I can safely assume you are not).

B.  The United States of America was at it’s most prosperous in the 1950′s when the “rich” were taxed at 90%.   Should they be taxed at 90% now?  No.  They should be taxed FAIRLY and they are NOT.

C.  Taxing the rich fairly will NOT solve all the problems, it is a step in the right direction.

D.  1% of 1% of 1% of the population in this country CONTROLS 

How long are you leftist going to keep blaming Bush for Obama’s Presidency. It’s been over 2 1/2 years and this is now Obama’s economy.  Watch how he will continue his past mistakes in his September speech to repair the economy.  I’ll give you a hint, We need to invest in the country (more spending) and use a balanced approach to do it, (higher taxes). Same sh*t different day.

“TMP”

No problem with mathematics, but thanks for your concern.  It SEEMS you SEEM to be having problems with English, though – specifically spelling the word SEEMS.

Let’s talk math.  It’s $700 billion over 10 years. Do you know what that happens to equal? Half of what 50% of Americans have in TOTAL ASSETS!  Can you compute that?  Half of what HALF of AMERICA OWNS.

1% OF 1% OF 1% of the population of America controls 95% of the wealth.  You believe they should get MORE TAX BREAKS? 

I’ll talk facts all day long.  Do I think that taxing the rich is the solution to all the problems?  No, I said that taxing the rich will solve problems – not all of them, but it’s a step in the right direction.

The truth is Buffet has a long history of going out of his way to make lots and lots of money.  It is not hypocritical of him to now be calling for higher taxes because he’s been doing it for a long time.  He did a piece on 60 minutes 5 years ago saying the same thing – that the rich don’t pay their fair share of taxes.  He advocates holding on to stocks for long periods because it’s the smart thing to do.  You don’t jump in and out of the market, you make more money over the long haul.  It’s just basic sound advice.

He pays taxes and taxes the deductions that are legally allowed him.  He takes advantage of tax laws because he’s a smart man who knows how to make money.  It is completely legal to avoid paying higher income taxes.  He’s saying that he should be paying more and so should all wealthy people.  He’s right.

Lastly, Obama wants to use Buffet because he is an intelligent, wealthy man who is right and people listen to him.  Buffet and Obama are saying that the mega wealthy should pay their fair share.  They’re not ‘going after’ anyone.

So you’re saying that Warren Buffet and / or Berkshire Hathaway do not have the right to dispute their tax bills?  I believe that’s the right of every American.

I didn’t say te economy didnt rebound under reagan i said the debt tripled under reagan. He cut taxes and raised spending period. He could have vetoed those bills from the congress he didn’t. He didn’t put up a fight. Heres an interesting fact. There were more government employees under reagan than under Obama, did you know that? look it up.

WHAT?

In answer to your question about the President’s budget cuts:

President Obama’s budget for 2012 takes a sharp knife to government spending,
with proposed cuts that will reduce deficits by hundreds of billions of dollars
over 10 years.
 

The cuts hit far and wide: airports, heat subsidies for the poor, water
treatment plants and Pell grants are just some of the targets. In total, half of
all government agencies would see their funding reduced from 2010 levels.

The bulk of the cuts are needed to support Obama’s proposed five-year freeze
on non-security discretionary spending, for $400 billion in savings. It’s a
small part of the federal budget, but one that is responsible for many popular
government activities.

The president’s budget, would eliminate or reduce funding to a total of 200 government
programs for savings of $33 billion in 2012 alone.

nope because when clinton came into office we were in a recession.  Your boy Bush had just raised taxes, which was fine. I will give some credit to the first George Bush because he put us on the path of fiscal sanity by raising taxes and cutting some spending(mostly in defense). Clinton continued these policies and got another tax increase in 1993, the republican congress got somethings done in the mid 90s with COMPROMISE(wow an amazing word) and were able to get some capital gains tax cuts. The deficit was reduced to 0.  Bush the 2nd came into office and decided to cut taxes(biggest in history up to that time) Then we get into 2 wars and he tells everyone to shop and keeps the tax cuts. Trillons of dollars later and in 2007 the economy begins to melt down for many reasons. The Debt doubles and the money for the wars hasn’t even begin to be counted till Obama gets in. We are losing 700,000 jobs a month before Obama even steps into the oval office and there are unfunded liabilities everywhere. For his first year in office in which even you would admit you cant turn things around very fast, jobs continue to be shed and the bills start to roll in. Obama comes up with a stimulus plan 40% which are tax cuts. We have stopped shedding jobs and 2 and a half years later we are treading water. The private sector has slowly begun to hire again, but state and local govt continues to lay off workers due to the economic meltdown in 2007 2008 where pension plans and state budgets were torn up.  The main reason we have a ballooning Debt is two unfunded wars and the Bush Tax cuts its as simple as that. Entitlements are a problem but they are not the current reason that Obama has built up a 4 trillion dollar debt in 3 years. You cannot fight two major wars and keep tax rates low its as simple as that. I don’t know why this is so hard to understand. No president in history has ever attempted this and hopefully none ever will again.

 Ahhh yes because as I have said before your approach of low tax rates and cutting spending has done wonders for the economy.

 He’s tried to move to the center buddy. But see when you have a congress who wants to filibuster everyword he says and wont compromise how can you move to the center? When a congress walks in and says hey we want you to cut spending and you not going to raise taxes even to close loopholes, where can he move? Clinton had a congress that worked with him in some respects. This congress is a joke. And to paint Obama as a lefty socialist is foolish. Did he close Gitmo? Did he pull all the troops out of Afghanistan? Has he not cut taxes? has he stopped fighting terrorist? Has there been a major terrorist attack in the united states since he took office? Is our defense budget not 700 billion dollars? Hell he sounds more like Reagan to me than Jimmy Carter but what the hell.

that’s Crap. You’ve been watching too much MSNBC.

Has he spent 4 trillion dollars on social projects? Has he increased unemployment? Has he done anything to help the housing crisis? Is he a tax and spend liberal?

“TMP”

It has in the past. I don’t see the “cutting spending” part in Obama’s plans. He’s increased spending by 4 trillion dollars.

“TMP”

So what? How’d the economy work out?

“TMP”

The last Gallop poll shows the numbers at 52%, which of course coincides with the number of bottom-feeding parasites that are not paying taxes at all! How about we get that set of parasites contributing, in stead of taking, before we talk of raising taxes at all.

The “rich” is hard to define. We keep hearing it is millionaires and billionaires when in fact it is individuals making over $200K and couples making over $250K. Since apparently you Liberals can’t figure out that isn’t the same, “rich” needs to be highlighted.

The rich most definitely pay their fair share. The bottom 50% of the country pay $0 in federal income tax.
The top 50% pay 100% of the taxes. Most of the bottom 50% get money back even though they didn’t pay any in.

The top 1% pay more in taxes than the bottom 95%.

The old saying of; “when you rob from Peter to pay Paul you can always count on the support of Paul” is a perfect example of Liberal mind set.

Why do Liberals always fall back on quoting Jesus and Regan? Truly pathetic.

I would rather light my head on fire than to hang out with a Liberal. Life’s too short to be that miserable.

Not only are you mathematically challenged but now you are reading words I never said????   I never said the so-called rich should get MORE TAX BREAKS.   

 He has not increased spending by 4 trillion dollars the last budget submitted by president bush was 3.1 trillion , spending for 2012 is projected to be 3.7 trillion this is why you guys get ripped on so much. You make up figures or listen to Fox news and think they are facts.

last budget by Bush 3.1 trillion projected budget for 2012 3.7 trillion. Where do you get these figures. How has he increased spending by 4 trillion?

Bush started with a 2 trillion dollar budget in 2000, his last budget was 3.1 trillion. Thats not even counting wars off the books.

The U.S. was booming in the 50′s because we were the only country that hadn’t been devastated from WWII. We were it.

That’s a fact. High taxes did not help anything, and are a horrible idea under almost any scenario.

The real world is too scary to lefties.

Neal I know what the govt taxes or doesn’t tax. Warren Buffet never said he doesn’t want to pay more taxes on capital gains. He stated the rich should pay more and that includes capital gains taxes. Why do you have a hard time understanding this.

Hungreds of billions over 10 years is a drop in the bucket to the tens of trillions of debt that will be racked up. Typical poor math skills by the lefties.

You simply want to ignore the problem and hope it goes away. It won’t. We have very little time left before the nation is destroyed. See Rome.

You do realize that the only reason that 47-50% of people pay no income tax is b/c they don’t make enough money to do so, don’t you? So you want to take more income tax from the poor who make around $13,000 and take care of a family of 4, because according to you they are taking “No skin off their nose” currently??? You do realize that even tho they pay no income tax, they still pay taxes on everything else they buy, don’t you??? So, I guess you’re in the camp that says it’s their fault for being poor so too bad for them, they need to give up even more of that $13,000 to the government? Screw it if they were born to the wrong parents, right? They should have been born to middle-class parents or rich parents. Or they should have been born in the right zip code, so they could have recieved a better education, right? Screw it if they wake up every morning to goto work for $7.25 an hour, bust their ass to feed their kids. Screw that poor guy who is a hard worker taking personal responsability for feeding his family. You pay 30% of ur income in taxes, and u can feed ur family, take a vacation every now and then, pay ur mortgage, ur car payment. So, why can’t he? Here’s the problem w/ the arguement about that 47-50% “not paying taxes…” 1) they do pay taxes, just not income tax. 2) If they did have to pay income taxes, they would most likely have to recieve government assistance since they are already poor. 3) Your taxes would have to go up eventually to make up the loss in government funds assisting the already poor, who were made poorer by paying income tax…. Watch the video I linked below. Maybe it will wake u up to reality a lil bit…
 http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-defends-the-poor-from-right-wing-claims-of-class-warfare/

The vacation was paid for by the Obama family… Tax dollars are used for the secret service. Which, btw, is the LAW… Republican or Democrat, doesn’t matter, tax dollars are always used for security purposes

So you disagree with those statements? I haven’t quoted Regan cause I really do know who that is. Reagan on the other hand…

Apparently I’m liberal. Funny how people always assume that because I challenge people to back up what they say. Check my posts, I challenge liberals too. I don’t like this your one or the other thing. People are people, not ideologies.

I see you’ve been talking to my ex wife. You are correct that life is too short. Kinda makes you wonder why so many people are fearful and angry.

You’re wrong.  The rich is not hard to define, but that’s not the point.  The very simple point is that the rich DO NOT pay the proportionate percentage of taxes for the amount of money they earn. 

In the 1950′s, those over $250K paid 90%.  That rate has gone down fairly steadily over the past 5 decades.  If it remained at a reasonable rate, there would easily be a surplus.

We are in the middle of two wars.  To have mega corporations and the mega rich pay little to no taxes as a percentage of the money they earn is beyond ludicrous.

The top 50% pay all of the taxes because of the HUGE and ever widening gap between the rich, the middle class and the poor.  400 people control 90% of the money.  You’re damn right they should pay the taxes.  There is another choice.  Stop raping the workers.  Pay them a decent wage, employ them and let them pay their own taxes.

Warren Buffet is absolutely 100% RIGHT!  STOP CODDLING THE RICH!

It’s as simple as first grade math.

No, no, you’re absolutely right.  We need to cut out all those programs for those “poor” people that own “refrigerators”.  The 400 people that control 95% of the money in this country are not rich enough.  They need more.  I think we should give 99% of the money to maybe 20 people, yes, that’s a much better direction than the one that I was talking about.

Good job, thanks for clarifying things for me.

So why was the tax rate at 90%?

He increased the deficit by 4 trillion dollars.

National debt has increased $4 trillion under Obama

The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama’s watch.

The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion.

I didn’t make up anything. $ trillion and counting and it’s only been 2 1/2 years.

Where’s Obama’s latest budget? There isn’t one!

“TMP”

The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama’s watch.

The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion.

The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama’s watch.

The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion.

So we shouldn’t raise $700 billion because it isn’t enough?  You’re an idiot.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-18-2011/world-of-class-warfare—warren-buffett-vs–wealthy-conservatives
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-18-2011/world-of-class-warfare—warren-buffett-vs–wealthy-conservatives

When Buffett talks about “the rich,” he is talking about people who make more than he does.

That sarcasm was meant for when a majority of Americans want something THE DEMOCRATS want, does it make it right? Right? When a minority of filthy rich special interests want something that THE REPUBLICANS favor, that makes it right? Huh?

What a moronic statement. Pure right-wing stupidity.

That would be about ten people in the entire world.
Try having a big thought once in a while.

Buffett is wise to point out that the worst thing about constantly trading stocks is the tax cost that is incurred.

Smart investors find good stocks and hold on to them. Stupid investors constantly trade stocks in a vain attempt to beat the market. Women (as a group) tend to be smarter than men in investing because women do hold on to good stocks, which requires patience, while men tend to see patience as excessive caution. Men think it is more manly to take risks and make big decisions every day. This costs them in taxes, in trading fees, and in the loss of dividend income that comes with wise investment.

If Buffet had “played with stocks” by constantly looking for quick profits, he would not be as rich as he is today.

As for Buffet’s accumulated wealth, he has promised that he will not leave any of it to his children or other heirs. They are successful on their own, and he is generous to them now, giving them gifts that are so big the gifts are taxed as income.

There is nothing shady about Buffet’s actions or intentions. He really does understand the real world far, far better than you do. You read one of his books, now read it again with what I just said in mind.

Ronald Reagan said ” “How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti- Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.”  It seems you read Buffet, but you didn’t understand him.

The very wisest thing from Buffet is what he says now. The rich won’t stay rich if they don’t do what they can to keep our economy strong!

Conservatives started treating Reagan like a saint, so we liberals love to quite the Conservative Saint and show just how liberal he was in comparison to the Conservatives of today. We love to quote Jesus because Conservatives keep telling us they are the only “real” Christians.

We are showing you how pathetic you are.

I have noticed the same thing. O’Reilly decides, then talks about his decision. There is no thought process involved. The odds are he will get something right every now and then, and he does. It is hit and miss. Mostly miss.

I LOVE your screen name

1. Corporate income and personal income are two different things. Buffet’s corporation has one set of tax accountants, and he has his own. Buffet talks about personal income, and as fishchef says, it is perfectly reasonable for Buffet to argue that everybody in his income range should pay more in taxes while he pays only what is required as of now.

Those of you who say he should just donate what he believes is fair and not consider what others are doing are hopelessly naive. You think there is some kind of ideological purity in the world. There is not.

Thank you.

Thanks, it’s almost famous. ;-)

“TMP”

I see you made another emotional demagogue liberal drivel post yet, as is ALWAYS the case, no details on how to pay for these so-called programs.   Tax the Rich won’t cover the cost. 

The philosophical difference we have is real simple……I do not believe Government is a Charity.  And I  believe Government does a LOUSY  job for the poor.    Since Lyndon Johnsons “programs for the poor” poverty has gone up.  Obama has increase “spending for the poor and now we have 1 in 7 on food stamps.   Now are you going to tell me 1 out of every 7 people could not EARN their own way. 

Blah blah blah…..like I said…..For you the “buck stops here” only when looks good for liberal leaders.   Otherwise others are to blame.  Of course I knew that……just wanted to point out the hypocrisy.

And of course I never said to you who I voted for.  And your post is a bumbling load of blather….not worth reading past a few lines. 

My favorite Reagan quote”It is not that are liberal friends are ignorant……it is just that they know so much that isn’t so”

And I was once a liberal so I truly understand what he means. 

a bumbling load of facts that you cant contradict so you choose to ignore. Go watch fox news they will tell you the facts you like to hear.

 But SoThere if you can figure out math. If the Debt has increased 4 trillion since Obama has been in office that doesn’t mean he’s increased spending by 4 trillion dollars. Do you not understand that.

Demagogues often rise to power through appeals to the ethnic (prejudicial) and nationalistic prejudices and vanities of the people.  Conservatives often accuse liberals of going overboard in assuring ethnic equality and they also accuse them of not having enough national pride, so a liberal oration can not really be considered demogogy.  Hitler is considered the epitome of demogogy because his rise to political power was partially based on his conspiracy theories that blamed the Jews for the economic woes of the country.  So let’s throw the first part of your statement out the window.

Secondly, any solution to the economic problem is complex and not as simple as taxing the rich or shutting down NPR.  By “so-called programs” do you mean social security, medicare, education, infrastructure, defense – what exactly are you talkiing about?

Third, we may have philosophical differences, but I do not believe that Government is a Charity.  It is Our Government which was charged by the founding fathers in the Constitution to ”establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”  It’s the “promote the general Welfare” part that allows Our Government make sure that there is a security net for the elderly, for the disabled and for the poor.  I’m not saying they’re perfect, but you are blaming ONLY the government as the reason why poverty has gone up and 1 and 7 are on food stamps. 

In my mind, this scenario would be ideal:

1.  Instead of CEO’s making millions and billions and paying low tax rates, some of the profits would go back into the company and into the workers.  There would be no need for National Healthcare, because Healthcare would be paid for by the corporations.

2.  Instead of Mega-Corporations like Exxon making record billions in profits and paying not a single penny in U.S. Federal taxes, they would invest in infrastructure of the United States instead of expecting the United States to foot the bill.

3.  Instead of Corporations raking in billions by exporting jobs to other countries in the name of profits (which by the way are the only thing Corporations – who are legally people – are required to do – they are not required to have values or morals) they could build a $1 million dollar home instead of a $36 million dollar home, or not get the toilet seat gold plated, or not stick their money in a Swiss bank account and remove it from U.S. circulation and they could hire more Americans and bring the unemployment rate down to 1%.

4.  If Mega Corporations – and I’m not talking about small, medium or even large businesses – just the behemoths and Mega Wealthy – and I’m not talking about the $250K people, but the Warren Buffett group would simply bring it down a notch, poverty would be eliminated.  But they don’t do this and this is the reason that the government is FORCED to step in.

Lastly to your point that 1 out of every 7 could not EARN their own way – believe me 99.9% of those people would LOVE to earn their own way.  This country is full of hard working, generous people.  Many conservatives point their fingers at the government, and I understand completely the faults with our government, but that’s overlooking the role that Mega Corporations and the billions they spend on lawyers and lobbyist to make sure that the rich continue to get richer and the middle class is left with less and less.  I just don’t see how someone can be so blind to not see this simple fact.  Corporations EXIST ONLY FOR PROFIT AND THEY SPEND BILLIONS TO MAXIMIZE THAT PROFIT.  There is nowhere near the same MOTIVATION for elected officials / government employees as there is in the CORPORATE WORLD.  Look for the MOTIVE.  A guy spends money to run for political office, maybe he gets the job, maybe he doesn’t, the pay is not that great, there is no job security – he could get voted out at any time, he’s hated and criticized in his job no matter what he does – THIS IS NOT A VERY STRONG MOTIVE. 

Look for the person (corporation) holding the gun.  He did it and he’s blaming the other guy (government).  Look for the motive. 

Oooooh ST , you son of a gun you!……….hehehheeee

You think there is some kind of ideological purity in the world. There is not.

Actually you are clueless of what I think. But, here’s a clue: He’s a liberal like fishclown, so ideologically, he can do no wrong, and everything can be justified away, as long as he is liberal. If he wanted to pay more taxes he could, by simply paying his corporate taxes and passing the savings on to you. But he is hiring some good lawyers. That is a job saved in 0bamaville.

Clue two: corporations pay no taxes…you do when they pass the cost of doing business on to you. Get it? Now you do have a clue as to what I think.

That’ why Buffet is the third wealthiest man in the world and Billo isn’t. Because he is right, that makes economic sense to me. 

That’ why Buffet is the third wealthiest man in the world and Billo isn’t. Because he is right, that makes economic sense to me. 

That is exactly the kind of quote that can be turned back on the group who said it in the first place. It is half-true and half-false and I can find lots of “knowing so much that isn’t so” on the conservative side.

Basically, the quote you chose is a joke, and Reagan knew it.

Bill does alright for his self. Notice how hard he cries as a 10 million level “job creator”. Paying 400 thousand more could cost him another car or something.
But I’m sure he will pay a lot less with all the crapola merchandise he moves for charity.

Thanks for showing us how dumb you are.
I say again, there is no pure ideology, and I know that a liberal can be every bit as crazy and emotional as you are.

Now. You tell me how you and I pay the taxes of Buffet’s company. His company does not make any product that we buy. It owns stocks, bonds, and other investments, mostly in insurance companies and banks. How does his company pass its taxes on to you? What is the mechanism?

Guy, if you can figure out math, if the debt increases 4 trillion dollars and we must pay our debt (as everyone now knows with the debt ceiling increase battle that we just went through)then doing that is spending 4 trillion dollars of the Nations money.

It’s not difficult. If we don’t meet the spendig requirements then the Nation shuts down and people don’t get paid.

Were you paying attention?

“TMP”

Talk about dumb?

How does his company pass its taxes on to you? What is the mechanism?

By raising the price of goods and services to the buyer of those goods and services. And, it isn’t Warren Buffet, per se, but you seem to need to have even the rudimentary spelled out for you. If it costs a business more money to do business, who the hell do you think pays the price, the tooth fairy?

What product would you be buying from him, shit -for-brains?

Awwww. I knew it was just a matter of time before you lost your little temper and threw a hissy fit. Don’t you little liberal sissies always whine that if you have to call out names that you’ve already lost the argument? LOL.

Now that you’ve opened the door to name calling, you’re not the devil’s spawn, but rather the devil’s clown. Sissy.

O’Reiily is right, Obama’s policies are not working. It is not the weak economy causing the debt, it is the free spending tanking the economy.

To all people who refuse to raise the taxes on tthe Very Rich! God can give it and god can take it!
                      Very unhappy voter Linda